Scarica il documento - Dipartimento per la Giustizia Minorile

Dossier
risk analysis hinges on the ability to categorize offenders into different categories.
in the German case, the offender is placed in one of four groups based on the combination
of two criteria (1) the risk of recidivism and (2) the assessed motivation for behavioural
change. the first two categories are characterized by a high risk of recidivism, but differ
in terms of the motivation to change. the first group does not demonstrate any desire to
change, whereas the second is characterized by the expression of a very high motivation
for change. these two categories are extremely important for the provision of probation
services, both because it groups offenders with a high level of risk together and because it
groups together offenders who have committed serious crimes, for example homicide or
sexual offences. Between 5 and 10 percent of all convicted offenders fall in one of these two
categories. Categories three and four are characterised by a low risk of recidivism. Group
3 consists of offenders who have committed minor crimes and demonstrate a willingness
to change their behaviour. Group 4 differs in that these individuals have not expressed a
desire to change their offending behaviour. Most offenders fall in Group 4; however, this
group is the least relevant for probation since they commit relatively minor crimes and are
the least likely to change when provided with assistance or services. this group can be
categorized as having lifestyle problems (e.g., problems with debts, drugs). these offenders
can attain support from various service providers and centres rather than through the
probation office. the evaluation of risk leads to the creation of a typology specific process
of support and surveillance based on the specifics of the individual case. probation that is
based on risk analysis seeks, as its primary objectives, to reduce criminogenic elements and
criminal thinking while increasing the offender’s motivation to change. this takes place
through case management.
Hans Gerz claims that probation based on risk analysis results in a notable
improvement in service provision above all in regards to quality through the consideration
and integration of “scientific” findings in the provision of services and the effective
coordination of individual cases. this is especially relevant for optimizing the use of internal
resources and handling a high number of cases. it also contributes to prevention, or rather
a lower recidivism rate (on a cases basis) and fewer new offences. this contributes to
greater safety and to a reduction in the number of victims.
Gunter May does not fully share this positive view of the use of risk analysis in
probation. instead, May sees the incorporation of risk analysis tools as being part of a wider
debate in probation about the “social” work being done in regards to cuts in personnel
and financial resources that is highly influenced by the mass media, which has been calling
for greater efficiency in the crime control system. the standardization of “social” work
presents itself as a possible solution to the problems under discussion and hence, for its
proponents, represents a valid means for making progress in addressing these concerns.
May places this larger debate within current events in Berlin where the discussion about the
“reform of social work” has provoked changes in the provision of probation services. these
changes involve the creation of standardized questionnaires that focus on delinquency and
the youth’s situation in life, but ultimately seek to assess the individual’s risk of recidivism.
these questionnaires are instrumental during the probation period and have become
part of the offender’s case file. Both the probation officer and the offender contribute to
completing the form, which serves both as a means for gathering information about the
51